Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

A few weeks ago, we discussed the discovery of a diamond planet in orbit around a pulsar. One of the researchers behind the discovery has now written a followup article about reaction to the news from the media and laypeople. Quoting:
"The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been. How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists. ... Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings. People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven. There would be doubt cast on the interpretation of our data and conjecture about whether we were “buddies” with the journal referees. If our opponents dug really deep they might even find that I’d once written a paper on a similar topic that had to be retracted. Before long our credibility and findings would be under serious question. But luckily we’re not climate scientists."

The difference is that when a scientist says "we believe that there is a diamond planet" people either say "cool" or "I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter". When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy. That's the difference.

When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size [upi.com]" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credi

GOD DAMNIT READ HIS POST.You're the third person to claim he's attacking the scientist(s), and you even quoted the freaking sentence!

When[what] climate scientists say is often used

Often used? By the scientist(s)?

to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

Nope! Turns out he said absolutely nothing about whether or not the scientist(s) is(are) wrong, or right, or ordering you around, or simply providing information. He said that the information provided by the scientist(s) in question is used by *someone* to justify restrictions. You are attacking the OP for saying the exact same thing you yourself are saying.

A guy brings up a relevant point on the fact that the science has an effect on our society, and then is torn to pieces by the carbon haters and the carbon lovers without ever hinting at which side of the argument he sits on.

Me personally, I dislike that I have been saddled by another tax in an already grim economic time. If it wasn't so hit and miss with basic survival right now, I might see it a bit differently. That being said, if we could have emotionless and politic free discussions on the whole issue, we'd all be better off. I'd like to know what the truth is, but just like the guy standing on my doorstep with his own translation of the bible, I want to know what your agenda is before I want to hear how I should change my life. Also, when your man at the top is profiting from me making another financial sacrifice, I better at least be able to see some open scientific discussion.

Even sitting in a public library, he's got a roof over his head, and a climate controlled place to be. Assuming he's on the street there are still shelters, and food.

I suspect that most people in this country have forgotten what "hit and miss basic survival" really means. It means potentially dying in some pretty gruesome ways, not whether or not you're going to be able to buy that latte and talk on your iPhone.

If the climate change science is accurate, he might actually get a chance to find out what

Invest - heavily - in more green technologies. Get LED lightbulbs down from the $50-$100 they are now. Get solar panels attached to boomboxes and cell phones. Create a cheap grey water reclamation system that can be installed in new homes.

Climate science did not come about at the same time you happened to notice it. The history of climate science (as related to AGW) goes back more than a century, the physics that fingers CO2 as the driver was discovered in 1824 when Fourier was inventing spectral analysis. As for geo-engineering we have already pumped half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled experiment, and we are on track to double that in the next 40yrs.

Not that I agree with all of Hansen's statements and actions, but if you worked for 30 years on projects that continually predicted serious effects on human civilization, would you just sit back and watch?

When the fuck did it become a bad thing to be working politically? He's trying to do something he believes in, which I guess, rubs some people whose only contribution to the world is to sit and complain all day the wrong way.

You are dead on. The majority of people will say to an announcement like this: what does this mean to me. Diamond planet - cool, that's an interesting thought. wonder what it looks like. etc. It has no meaningful impact to our lives. Climate change, on the other hand, has a potentially large impact on our lives all the way down to the poorest person on the street. Carbon credits, government taxation, cap and trade, etc. It has a direct impact on how we live our lives. And by and large, people do not like ch

Social impact is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The social impact of discovering XYZ causes cancer, or can extend your lifespan, or whatever is equally important to people's quality of life, but it doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny. People generally accept the research at face value. (If only people would actually scrutinise a newspaper report in which it's revealed that chocolate has lots of antioxidants, via a study sponsored by Hershey and Googolplex Cinemas.) Climate science is argued back and forth because it's something people are conditioned to treat as a controversial issue. There are other topics - vaccination, mobile phone health - where a scientific consensus with a large impact on people's lives is presented as a controversial issue because it's one of the press's main "stories" to tell, and not because there is a genuine issue.

For years, a "Vast Majority" of scientists and doctors said that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

As soon as we actually started doing studies into the health effects of smoking, the cancer link became clear immediately. The Nazis did the original research in the 1920's, though their research was largely ignored due to the political situation which followed shortly after. When the Brits undertook their own research in 1950, it took only 4 years before the scientific consensus was solidly behind the smoking-cancer link. The following "controversy" was caused entirely by exactly the same type of nonsense that's going on today: big business funding their own "science", and media reporting fringe views as if they were equivalent to the scientific consensus.

First a hacker exposed a major scientist fully admitting the numbers were fudged to show global warming models working

No, that's bullshit.

The second was excused because the scientist was a skeptic *gasp* and believed Intelligence Design is plausible... therefore he can't be a "real" scientist.

More bullshit.

There is reason to doubt, and people who do doubt shouldn't be ridiculed. I prefer my science to be more like science than religion.

There is reason to doubt some parts, and there is always room for healthy skepticism. However, there is a massive difference between skepticism and cynicism. The vast majority of the "climate change skeptics" I've met are simply ideologues repeating talking points; they don't bother to do any research, they don't understand the science, and they have no interest in learning anything - they only care about voicing their opinion as loudly as possible, while ridiculing scientists and dismissing any research they don't like. That's not skepticism.

Actually what climate scientists' findings on global warming imply is that we should improve our energy efficiency.

That will actually improve things for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of folks. The only people who are going to lose out on energy efficiency are a handful of parasites whose contributions to this world we will assuredly not miss.

Thus, the massive paid campaign of disinformation carried out by the SELECT FEW whose business interests will be impacted by improving things for the rest of them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those select few people can go fuck themselves in the ear.

Actually what climate scientists' findings on global warming imply is that we should improve our energy efficiency.

That will actually improve things for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of folks. The only people who are going to lose out on energy efficiency are a handful of parasites whose contributions to this world we will assuredly not miss.

If you approach "improve energy efficiency" from the perspective of "when old, inefficient devices wear out, replace them with high-efficiency devices", then no argument.

If, on the other hand, your notions of "improve energy efficiency" reduce to "everyone, everywhere, has to get rid of their old, inefficient devices and replace them RIGHT NOW with new, higher efficiency devices", then "improving energy efficiency" means hardship for all but the very rich everywhere.

It is neither overwhelmingly verified nor agreed upon. Even if it was, so was terracentrism.

And what is uncomfortable and inconvenient for Americans is deadly for poor people around the world. I guess you forgot that not everyone is as rich as you are, or that the primary purpose of the economy is to ensure that everyone's desires are met, most especially the stringent desire to live. But you would ignore that based on some mumbo-jumbo about how the Earth is going to do SOMETHING to make things someho

"Brown people", by who I assume you mean starving people in much of Africa, or perhaps just developing communities everywhere, are not particularly energy-hungry societies. While the impacts of environmental legislation must be weighted carefully to protect the vulnerable, the fact is that carbon capping does more to damage the bottom line on your iPod than it does to damage the harvest of a subsistence farmer in central Asia.

Subsistence farmers in third world countries probably won't be affected by any first world legislation that attempts to protect the environment.

This is Slashdot, not some debate between mindless politicians where you can hide behind unverifiable talking points. People call you on your bullshit here, which I'm about to do:

Your argument is set up thus: Attempting to counteract the climate change scientists believe humans have caused is so catastrophic to the world's economy that doing so would be morally reprehensible. But one does not follow the other. Those who benefit from treating the planet poorly are multi-billion dollar corporations, not subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. Not primitive tribes in Brazil. Not your sweatshop worker in China. Brown people eating isn't the cause of our environmental problems. What does brown people eating have to do with all the crude oil that's floating around in the Gulf of Mexico? Beef production has a costly toll on the environment, but most brown people I know don't eat beef (http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/menu.html).

Furthermore, I would argue that treating the planet with more respect would cost these multi-billion dollar companies a lot of money. And that money would go into the economy rather than sit in some corporation's bank account.

I'm not confirming or denying that climate change is leading the planet to disaster. But it is better to err on the side of caution. To argue that treating the planet responsibly could result in the starvation for anybody is absurd (not to mention that, it's not evident that feeding a few takes moral priority over sustaining the planet that EVERYONE depends on - it definitely fails the utilitarian model). You have less evidence that heeding climate scientists' warnings will cause starvation than the climate scientists have that the climate is changing for the worse.

It is neither overwhelmingly verified nor agreed upon. Even if it was, so was terracentrism.

Now, what a completely stupid comparison to make. Geocentrism was the result of superstition, religion and speculation. When Galileo applied the scientific method he found that the Earth could not possibly be the centre of the Universe. And then the fucktards in the Catholic Church imposed their obscurantist view on him. They're the AGW deniers of the time.

And what is uncomfortable and inconvenient for Americans is deadly for poor people around the world. I guess you forgot that not everyone is as rich as you are, or that the primary purpose of the economy is to ensure that everyone's desires are met, most especially the stringent desire to live.

Africa has been suffering more and more with global warming. They get more severe droughts and rampant desertification that causes famine, mass migrat

ignoring the fact that the "solution" is far, far worse than the "problem"

Economic alarmists said the same thing about removing lead from petrol, they said the same thing about Reagan's cap and trade system on sulphur emissions, they said the same thing about banning DDT for agricultural use, reduction of CFC's, etc, etc. In fact they say the same thing whenever there is talk about regulating what can/can't be dumped on the commons.

You start with the unsupportable assumption that a warmer world is worse for humanity or the biosphere. Historical evidence shows clearly expansions of humanity and ecosystems during warmer periods, even periods *much* warmer than today (for example, the Late Eocene with near tropical temperatures in Antarctica).

How about we do this - let's come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding "a warm world is more dangerous for humanity". What observations,

So what you're saying is, because the truth is inconvenient, it has to be denied?

The truth is irrelevant, not inconvenient.

The ground I'm sitting on has been at the bottom of a tropical sea and has been underneath mile tall glaciers. Hearing a fanatic explain that we must model our nation to a cross between somalia in the 00s and cambodia in the 70s to prevent a couple degree temperature change is simply not very relevant to me. If you must destroy the economy, annihilate culture and lifestyle, eliminate the children (literally), and remove yourself from the gene pool, then I'm sad yo

How many humans were living on the land you are sitting on when it was at the bottom of a tropical sea? Underneath mile tall glaciers? Did you say none?

How many less humans will be living on the land you are sitting on if it changes drastically (sea, glaciers)? How many wars will those displaced humans cause? How much will the unrest disrupt our civilization and the rate of technological progress? How many people will suffer and die due to those changes?

The truth is irrelevant, not inconvenient.

Sure... keep on telling yourself that. I am not worried about "saving mother earth" or any crap like that. "Mother Earth" will survive. Humans have built their cities in convenient places (on the coast, next to rivers, near fertile land with plenty or rainfall). How well can humans adapt when the climate changes (coastal areas underwater, rivers flood, fertile land does not get rain)?

No, but if the guy telling you that the paint is wet is
standing there with a brush and bucket of the same color, and fresh splatters on his overalls;
and you heard some fat drug addict on the radio said that "Hitler was a painter! They want your light bulbs!";
and fuck, you never painted anything yourself but what does this brush-toting shit know about it;
and sure, you saw him touching the brush to the bench as you were walking up, but you just *feel* that no one has enough data to know about the bench since *you* don't;
plus, on Sunday your preacher said that only SkyDaddy Longbeard can paint a bench;
and THEN you touch the paint to see if it's wet, then YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. And an asshole to boot.

Signed, a Painter (but not of benches), who has received enough crackpot letters from armchair fuckfaces and religious shitheads to know the goddam score.

Not even a month ago I tried this same logic in a post [slashdot.org] (and probably in earlier posts):

The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?

Surprise surprise, no one cares. You can point out the scientific consensus [wikipedia.org] or ask why there are no political witch hunts in other fields [slashdot.org] and people just don't seem to even respond to my concerns because they just saw a two minute YouTube video and suddenly they're informed and ready to discredit someone who has devoted their life to studying this field and reading papers. CFCs were bad, that was okay, everyone gobbled that up. Everyone saw maps of the ozone layer and totally trusted the scientists that it was CFCs doing it... not just a regular natural process. Show someone a map of ice coverage on the Arctic Circle [upi.com] and tell them it's greenhouse gases at work. Suddenly the same scientists are lying to them. What the hell is different about these two scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight...

Imagine yourself as an Average Joe who just managed to grind his way through a few basic high-school science courses. You don't know or care about science, it was just a course you had to take, and ideally would have liked to skip. Sort of like gym class is to geeks.

Most people were first introduced to the theory of global warming by Al Gore (already a Bad Guy to conservatives) telling them that their Dodge 3500 is killing polar bears and going to flood New York. BUT, they could prevent this by buying carbon credits (I think we can all agree that the current implementations of carbon credit schemes are...flawed, at best). Oh and he owns a carbon credit company but he didn't mention that bit. Then he flies off in his private jet back to his giant house with a heated pool. Oh and by the way, solving this problem will involve CHANGE and might require HIGHER TAXES.

So now Joe Average understandably thinks this whole global warming thing looks mighty fishy and doesn't like the implications. He goes online to do a little research and has a few choices where to get his info from (assuming he didn't unintentionally use a biased search string like "global warming scam"): he can go to these sciencey websites using gigantic words, or he can go to these little blogs that say CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM and are reinforcing all his worst suspicions. He spends the night reading through these blogs, and it all makes sense! That science stuff is confusing but this explains the whole conspiracy in a language he can understand. And look! Just follow the money! As long as this climate change thing is real that means money for scientists researching it and for renewable energy companies! It HAS to be a scam!

Even if Al Gore had never said a word about climate change, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind. It's not Al Gore who Joe Average hates, it's the ideas that Al Gore represents. If George W. Bush all of a sudden became a defender of climate science and green technology, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind about climate science and green technology, he'd change his mind about George W. Bush.

>>The reason noone is getting upset by the "diamond planet" is because noone really cares all that much - it doesn't affect them in their day-to-day lives.

Correct. One of the prevailing views on both the left and right is that if AGW is true, this implies we have to either get rid of our cars, or drive a lot less. (AGW -> !car) It's not a fringe belief, either - James Hansen himself wants to eliminate all fossil fuels, so hey, good luck driving your 50MPG Honda Civic with no gas. Have fun trying to

Actually, you raise an interesting point. The diamond planet can be used as an example of how common diamonds really are, how their supply is intentionally kept artificially low by companies such as DeBeers for the sake of fixing extremely high prices.

I think if more people understood diamonds scientifically and economically they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry.

The article hints at this but never says it outright: The reason climate change is controversial among those with little or no scientific background or training while diamond planets are not is because climate change research affects many governmental regulation policies. If the diamond planet idea is wrong, then corrections to theories are made, and the field moves on. If it's right, then it may contribute to the development of helpful technologies and discoveries. But if a climate change idea is wrong, then corrections to theories are made, and the field moves on, and either the world economy has suffered for no reason or people are experiencing famines that could have been prevented. Thus, controversial.

The diamond planet created a lot of attention and excitement because people could fantasize about a mining mission to bring back tons of diamonds (even though the reality is that such travel will likely be impossible for centuries, and perhaps forever).

But climate science brings out the naysayers and layman disbelievers in hordes because it invokes thoughts of government regulations and/or taxes aimed at reducing emissions.

The difference between the diamond planet discovery and climate science is politics. The reason amateurs attack the climate science has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with a political objective. But the same can be said for the supporters. Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He has a significant financial interest in climate science reaching a particular conclusion. He has significant investment in the whole business of climate change.

Now, I'll agree that most who attach climate science are kooks. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the whole issue is so incredibly polarized that no legitimate critique of climate science ever gets a voice because it is universally written off with the overwhelming number of idiots on the right. According to "everyone", climate science is 100% settled and there is no questioning it. But once you get past the people pushing the political agendas and talk to the real scientists, you'll find that the attitude isn't so set in stone. They want to keep studying it so they can understand more about it because they don't all believe that it's 100% set in stone.

Scientists want to learn more. They want to understand the incredibly complex system that is our environment. They want to know more about how things work so they can make better predictions about what is coming. They don't care about pushing a political agenda. But they're too busy working on research to tell the general public that the politicians are misrepresenting their findings.

The Good People of DeBeers would like to remind you that, while "A Diamond is Forever"(tm), any extraterrestrial diamonds that may or may not have been discovered by astronomers, likely just making things up in an attempt to grub for telescope time, are not a worthy substitute for DeBeers Genuine Diamonds, harvested by hand from the heart of Our Home.

A xeno-diamond says "My love for you is cold, alien, and almost unimaginably distant, just like this diamond."

A good, old-fashioned terrestrial diamond, however, "My love for you is worth dying for, like the poor sucker who mined this thing may just have..."

Really, just because climate science has immediate implications in the real world doesn't make it politics nor the scientists doing that research political. People need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that science is science and if they don't like the implications of that then it is their own tough crap. Not that this will ever happen or that any climate scientists can ever expect to actually be treated in a fair, rational, or even civil manner by the barbarian hordes.

First, the study of climate (or astronomy) is not strictly a science. There are no opportunities to conduct controlled experiments. This is not inherently bad, but one must be careful not to label something a "science" when a sincere argument can be made that it is not. Luminaries such as Richard Feynman made such arguments, so I don't think one would be in bad company when saying that this study is not a science.

Second, the study of climate is fraught with error. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. Without the ability to conduct a controlled experiment, the best one can do is to model what is going on and to hypothesize why the model doesn't agree with observations or make accurate predictions.

The wrongness is when those very same people take their study results in to the political limelight and say to the effect "This is the sky; it is falling; and you must do as I say or evil will happen." Doesn't the notion of conflict of interest enter here?

There are many responses to how we could manage our changing climate. I am happy to read the research. I may read a suggestion regarding the responses. But really, it got a bad name because too many political hacks took a centralized conservation approach and built a phony baloney market in Carbon Dioxide indulgences that most researchers agree will have a minimal effect on the climate, while ignoring other potentially much more serious Green House Gasses like Methane.

Astronomy doesn't have this problem because astronomy is primarily a study of discoveries with very few implications on politics. And no, I don't see a good reason to call it a science, either.

I fail to see how the inability to create suns and planets has hampered Astronomy's claim to be a science. A science (go back and read your definitions) has a more or less formal theory and can make verifiable predictions. It is not predicated on conducting controlled experiments where we get to control every thing. They call it a natural science for a reason. Biology is similar, we cannot control for all the variables, and it isn't not a science just because we cannot create our own living cells.

Ah, I like it. It is actually a common rhetorical strategy employed by the spinmeisters. I have encountered it in the climatology as well as in the creationism "debate". You can't reproduce the whole system, therefor you can't do reproducible experiments, therefor you are not doing science. It is, of course, bullshit. The reality, of course, is that you propose a hypothesis - if A happens, I should be able to observe B. Then, in sciences like astronomy, geology, climatology and the like, you wait for A and

That would mean you don't understand the meaning of the word science. Its a rather common problem.

No, see, the issue is that you cannot distinguish experimentation from the scientific method. Developing a hypothesis and then testing it in a verifiable and repeatable fashion is the scientific method. Experimentation is/one/ way of testing a theory. Experimentation is impossible in any of the global studies -- this includes geology, astronomy, and climate studies. But Experimentation is not the only way

"Let me give you a lesson in practical politics." Senator Burt looked at his wristwatch, leaned back and smiled. "It is a mistake," he said, "to suppose that the public wants the environment protected or their lives saved and that they will be grateful to any idealist who will fight for such ends. What the public wants is their own individual comfort.

"Now then, young man, don't ask me to stop the Pumping. The economy and comfort of the entire planet depend on it. Tell me, instead, how to keep the Pumping from exploding the Sun.

Lamont said, "There is no way, Senator. We are dealing with something here that is so basic, we can't play with it. We must stop it."

"Ah, and you can suggest only that we go back to matters as they were before Pumping."

First of all, the "Oracles" are being interpreted by hundreds, if not thousands, of people the world over and the vast majority of them are coming to the same conclusion... Second of all, no one is saying we need to condemn ourselves to eternal poverty, only that we need to find alternatives. Third, most of what "they" want us to do is good in all kinds of ways beside reducing climate change even if you choose not to believe it, unless you really like living in smog or something.

Beyond all of that is the clear evidence of the eyes. The planet is getting warmer on average. There are some other potential explanations for this, but none of them makes as much immediate sense as "All these insulating gases we produce cause insulation." (Occam's Razor and all that) The high level of solar activity recently is a likely contributing factor, but similar levels of activity have been seen before without the dramatic increase in temps we're seeing now.

At worst it's a risk/reward scenario:

Fact: the planet is growing warmer.Fact: this is extremely bad for human civilization for a number of very obvious reasons.Supportable theory: Part of the cause of this warming is human greenhouse emissions.Supportable theory: There are various other external and uncontrollable environmental factors contributing

Given the potentially huge cost involved in the trend continuing (like the loss of most coastal cities in the world and lots of arable land), doesn't it make sense to do something about the one controllable factor in the equation? Even if we're not 100% sure?

"Morons" didn't build on coastal areas... people that thought it might be nice to have things like intercontinental trade, and seafood built on coastal areas. Most coastal cities were built when rivers and oceans were indispensable sources of food and trade, and commutes were well nigh impossible. Today rivers and oceans are still indispensable sources of food and trade, and most people don't fancy commuting a few hundred miles a day to work on the coast and live inland (though it is at least realisticall

Actually, your analogy is more telling than you realized, because Galileo's big problem, and what he got in trouble for, was that he tried to reinterpret scripture. Aka, he stopped simply doing scientific work and interjected himself into what was then the equivalent of today's political realm. Copernicus, for example, didn't have any of the problems Galileo had. Your bringing up Galileo would be an apt comparison perhaps when talking about a few scientists who willingly take to the public limelight, lik

but ignore the fact that this type of temperature rise has happened many times before

That is a lie. There is not a climate scientist alive who has ever stated global temperatures were a constant until mankind increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the climate scientists themselves who tell us that global temperatures have varied widely over time.

all plunge ourselves into eternal poverty to satisfy the egos of a few climate cultists.

Of course they don't SAY it. But it is a bias that exists. It exists in all humans.

For example, ask yourself what North American Indians lived like for the several hundred years before the arrival of European colonists. Chances are you think that they were sedentary farming tribes in the East, nomads on the great plains, and sedentary village builders in the West. This was not the case (outside of the West). Rather, the east was a great culture that worked metal and had complex trade routes along the Mississippi. The tribes of the midwest didn't become nomads until the introduction of horses by the spanish.

You tell me how EXACTLY are we going to reduce carbon emissions without reducing our economic output. You know, the economic output that the poor depend on for their survival. People are ALREADY starving in Africa. What do you think is going to happen when the fuel used to grow the grains we send/sell to them quadruples in price? You don't think, and that's why your meddling in markets is deadly.

The logical flaw in AGW skeptics when they bring up history of past ice ages is that somehow the historic cause of something negates all modern causes today. That's like a coroner ruling that since no humans died from firearms in biblical times, no one can die of firearms today. The correct interpretation is modern causes are not neccesarily the only causes; climate scientists have ruled out historical causes for temperature rise. Now this method is more through elimination than outright proof. Such pro

Well, that's not quite true. There are lots of people who are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalala...".

The worst of it is those who insist that just because yesterday and today were cold in Lower Pisshaven, that somehow disproves the notion of climate change, under the common oversimplification of "global warming".

There is no perception of climate change that is going to be universally useful. If you live on a little atoll in the Pacific, or if you happen to be a polar bear, you should be seriously worried. But if you are a farmer in Greenland, it's quite possible that you're in luck...

The proper response to an event that seems anomalous is to see whether there's any research on the subject -- both research saying whether it *should* be happening more often, and research saying whether it *is* happening more often. Weather is the noise. Climate is the signal. If you know what the signal is, you can tell how likely what you just experienced was and whether you can expect more of it in the future.

In the case of snowfall, increased snowfall is a forecast of global warming for most regions

First off, it depends on what you call "proponents". The only ones whose opinion really matters is that of climate scientists, not uneducated members of the public. The scientific community has been largely divided on the results of AGW on hurricanes in the Atlantic basin (the basin which most Americans care about), although there seems to be more evidence for "worse" than "better" thusfar, if the number and frequency of citations of the papers is anything to go by. You have a balance between two factors

Right. So when people study the climate, they're doing so because they have a secret agenda, but when they study planets, they're doing it because they love science. Am I following your line of thought correctly?

In recognition of this "politics in science", the U.S. created NSF, NASA, DARPA, and NIH. That pretty much stopped politics in science, at least until Congress-Creatures decided they knew more than the scientists and found they could earmark for science projects.

1) violent tv causes people to act violently, whether we're talking adults or kids, low or high iq,... the smaller the kids, the more pronounced the effect, but there is a definite effect even on 50-year-olds

This isn't settled at all. The best anyone has done is correlate violent media with violence (not causation) which can easily be explained by saying "violent people like violent media". And until someone proves causation, it's the only conclusion that can really be made. If you think this is settled, show evidence.

2) violent computer games are much, much worse than tv, and also cause violent behavior. Including adults

Even less settled than above, several studies have proven that violent video games aren't any worse than other violent media. Surprise, surprise, st

I'm supposed to believe them based on blind faith or a bunch of indirect evidence presented at me with no long term directly observed facts to back it up?

No, you're supposed to believe them when you carefully weigh up the huge weight of accumulated scientific evidence. But, of course, it's much easier to carry on living as you are, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you".

But for comparison purposes, Exxon spent $23 million for climate research in 10 years. The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. (Source [abc.net.au]) Exxon also spent $600 million on biofuels research.

... which is dishonest by itself. Most of the money goes to weather monitoring and weather forecasting. Some of the largest computer clusters in the Top 500 list are purposebuilt for weather simulation and weather prediction. Many civilian satellites are weather satellites. The weather modelling got pretty good in recent years. While about 20 years back weather forecasts very valid only for about 24 hrs to 36 hrs, today's models are good at predicting the weather for the next three days, and the week forecasts are often correct.

So the infrastructure to collect weather data, to process it in simulations and to build models which resemble real weather processes is there - built for weather forecasting. And if someone starts to take all that raw data, processes it with all the dirty tricks and adaptions weather forecasters have developed to overcome faults and systematic errors, and which proved themselves in thousands of weather forecasts in the last 30 years, and then applies the same models that are so successful for the foreseeable future, to longer periods of the past and finds out that they work remarkably well even for runs over 50 years or 100 years and resemble the raw data results for those last 50 or 100 years, and then let the same models run 50 or 100 years in the future, he suddenly is a dishonest liar, whose only purpose in life is to get grant money from an overreaching government in its quest to control everybody?

Most climate scientist run experiments all the time - they try to predict the weather for the next days or weeks or months. They are pretty good at it. But a large share of the U.S. population (AGW deniers are much less in other countries) doesn't like the conclusions they come to, if they run their models for a longer period, and suddenly climate scientists are an evil bunch.

AGW deniers should stop believing the weather forecasts. It's pure hypocrisy to believe weather forecasts to be mostly correct and at the same time AGW to be a conjured scheme to funnel government money to climate scientists pockets. Because in fact they are the same people responsible for both, and the same theories backing their predictions.

The problem is that to climate denialists, once you are a climate scientist you've already "turned political." It's inherent to the profession according to their view (although oddly enough, the few scientists (maybe I should put quotes around that) who put forward theories that suggest that the currently accepted theories are flawed never get this label...).

I'm not so sure that everyone who isn't "on the AGW/ACC bandwagon" are _denying_ the science of climate study. Rather, I think they are questioning the knee-jerk solutions to a "problem" not yet fully defined, the sometimes overreaching conclusions made from a dataset still in development, and also motives of those politicians and scientists who stand to profit from said 'solutions', yet who preach loudest about applying their pet 'solutions' *right now*.

"The climate" is not, nor has it ever been, a static system. We have only begun to study it in earnest. Let's let the science and data develop, before we go salting the oceans with rust to cause plankton blooms, and other such possibly world-changing 'solutions'. Let's employ rationality and healthy skepticism to further our understanding, before we go trying to "fix" what may well prove to be natural forces in action.

"The climate" is not, nor has it ever been, a static system. We have only begun to study it in earnest. Let's let the science and data develop, before we go pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to cause tropospheric warming, and other such possibly world-changing problems. Let's employ rationality and healthy skepticism to further our understanding, before we go trying to change what may well prove to be a critical part of the environment we live in.

Can you see a problem with attacking the science just because you don't agree with the policies people are trying to push based on it?

I mean, if someone claims that the fact that the earth orbits around the sun means that we must adopt communism, the right thing to attack is the said "communism policy" by point out the step where they go wrong in their logic ("The earth does indeed go around the sun, but this is why I think this should not lead to communism.").

With hyperbole like that, I take it you're somewhat against the idea of reversing man-made global warming and trying to save our planet. Look, I'm sure you're an intelligent person. If you can't see that it is totally insane to continue using 100W light bulbs, there is no hope for any of us. You can light an entire house using less energy than that single 100W bulb would use, and the little photons of light would be perfectly adequate.

Look around you. See what is happening and get a god damn clue. Once you've done that, stop using the idiotic language you used above and become part of the solution, not part of the problem.

My apologies if you were trying to play devil's advocate (though if that's the case it was a bit pointless -- I don't think the scientists are asking why the climate scientists get so much stick -- I think they know already), but it didn't come across that way. If you were just trolling, grow up and do something useful.

You live the real world now. You can't run to mummy and have her kiss your boo boo and make it better. If you drop your ice cream, nobody has to buy you another. Crying about it won't make it happen any longer. These are problems for adults, and they demand an adult response.

Nobody's demanding trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes because of the diamond star. Nobody's using the coercive force of law to dictate what mileage automobiles get becaus of the diamond star.

Unmitigated climate change, will, at best conservative estimates [wikipedia.org], cost us 20% of the worlds output, plunging the world economy into depression - as well causing an unprecedented extinction event, and causing millions of people to become refugees.
In contrast, taking action now will cost us much less - maybe 3-5% of the worlds GDP for a few years while we upgrade our infrastructure and transport strategies.
The adult response is to live with the fact that our light bulbs and vehicles are now better than they were before. The adult response is to recognise that we have the responsibility to act, that we have no right to steal from and impoverish the generations that will follow us. The adult response is to recognise that we cannort expect someone else to fix our boo boo.

Unmitigated climate change, will, at best conservative estimates [wikipedia.org], cost us 20% of the worlds output, plunging the world economy into depression - as well causing an unprecedented extinction event, and causing millions of people to become refugees. In contrast, taking action now will cost us much less - maybe 3-5% of the worlds GDP for a few years while we upgrade our infrastructure and transport strategies.

Wow, you must be a huge booster for absolute free trade everywhere, and radical globalization! Because there is a consensus amongst economists that would make a much bigger positive difference to the world GDP than the cost of GW you cite. And that consensus is based on computer models of a much simpler system (the world economy, which involves only 10^10 actors) than the Earth's climate.

So, given you are so profoundly concerned about the future of the global GDP, could you please post some links on your

And if they did, would this affect the quality of their research, or their expertise, or their credibility in their field?

Your point is of course that nobody cares what scientists waffle on about, until those conclusions might affect them personally, and possibly in a negative way (positive conclusions are readily accepted, of course). At which point, these people will vigorously shoot the messenger in their efforts to cling to their precious status quo.

the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?

example: evolution. the idea we evolved from now extinct species that were more like apes, then rodents, then sea slime, challenges religious beliefs that posits that, for example, a god made man in his image. a religious scholar might comment that atheists are using evolution to destroy religion. but what if evolution just naturally and without any prompting, challenges age-old religious beliefs?

at some point, you are going to have to concede that the science challenges your political beliefs, without any contrived or phony effort or dubious agenda. then you are going to have to give up your political beliefs, or continue to cling to them in denial of what science says. not because leftists have won, but because reality has won

"Darwinism" - survival of the fittest as a concept - has been used as an argument for laissez-faire capitalism, which is something of a libertarian ideal. However darwanism as concept hasn't much to do with evolution as science. For one thing people forget that "fittest" means "most survivable", not "best", because "best" is ill-defined. There's no a priori reason to suppose that economic darwinism would result in an optimally efficient economy. That's a matter for economists and I couldn't tell you whether

evolution has to do with speciation. it has nothing to do with racism or class warfare, no matter how many dimwitted fools try to force that round peg into a square hole

in the same way, all of the red herrings you reference above mean nothing, because anyone with a malformed, dimwitted understanding of a scientific concept can say that the scientific concept supports alm

That is truly one of the most ignorant and idiotic statement I have read on slashdot. That ranks right up there with the "electric" universe and flat earthers.

Climate science isn't pushing a political agenda anymore than anthropology is. The only people making it political are politicians backed by big money interests who stand to lose money by policy changes. You act like this is the first time this has happened. It isn't. Every time a big company or multiple big companies stand to lose money due to a poli

The reason is that the diamond planet is not being used to advance a political objective.

1. Scientists identify a potentially serious problem, one that could very easily lead to disaster, famine, and war.2. Scientists study that potentially serious problem, make predictions based on their theories, and determine that so far reality is basically matching their predictions, except that the problem is even bigger than they originally thought.3. Scientists go to politicians and the public and say "We have a serious problem if we keep doing things the way we are doing them. Here's what we need to ch

Just like the USA. And guess what? The climate change can even be noticed here in the Netherlands. There are always polluters and there are even always big polluters. But I fail to see why that is a reason to demolish your local country as well. Britain is quite beautiful if you are in the countryside.

Why should WE be restricting ourselves to "save the planet", when the Chinese are brutally raping their own landscape and polluting everything in sight to serve their rampant industrial conquest of the world...

You sound like an avid consumer sound-bites, but they have little (if anything) to do with reality. Consider total investment in clean energy last year. China = $34.6 billion, US = $18.6 Billion. Hmmm. China ain't perfect, but at least they are putting money where it counts.

As a UK resident, you are responsible for - twice [wikipedia.org] as much CO2 emissions as a person from china. For Australians and Americans, it is double that again. And notably, a large proportion of chinese emissions are actually due to their huge industrial base - the purpose of that base being: to make goods for the west. If we didn't buy those goods, then chinese emissions would go down. Fairly sure we shouldn't be adopting a posture of moral outrage against the chinese on this issue.

statistical methods and conclusions from correlated data (as in the global warming debate) just DON'T carry the same logical force as objective, emperical, experimental science

Do you really believe that statistical analysis is unique to climate science? What do you think CERN publishes? What do you think its terabytes of storage are for? What do you think biologists, and epidemiologists, and biochemists, and evolutionary biologists, and developmental researchers, and medical researchers publish in their journals? What about chemists? What do you think these guys did to pull the tiny variances in data out that betrayed the existence of a planet made of diamond?

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Besides, the author ignores the fact that the public and media scrutinity occurred because scientists themselves can't agree on the facts.

The fraction of climate science researchers who come down on the side of anthropogenic global warming is over ninety eight percent. You won't find a stronger concensus on a front-line research issue anywhere. There is no scientific debate on this issue. It's settled.

Actually, scientists determined that the world was round, and pretty confidently settled on the issue, hundreds of years before one particular religious orthodoxy decided that it must be flat. And even then sailors knew to ignore it.

The impact of the concensus amoungst climate scientists comes not from their numbers, but the vast body of evidence they have presented. We may suck at forecasting weather for obvious reasons, but climate modelling is very well-understood, in much the same way that individual-level medical diagnosis is still an uncertain art, but medical epidemiology is a settled issue.

If you've studied just a little bit of chaos theory you know that it is impossible to forecast weather for more than a very limited time

Luckily, climate is not weather. Average temperatures over a large area are much more reliable to predict than short-time local noise. In general, if you add more energy to the system, average temperatures will go up. It's pretty simple.

No, what's purposefully invoked is the similarity in how argumentation goes with people who deny that the Holocaust happened, and how argumentation goes with people who deny AGW is happening. In both cases it's a never-ending merry-go-round of arguments that have been long debunked, conspiracy theories and cherry-picking of who is a true expert and who isn't.